Hey, as far as I'm concerned, anything that reminds us of our roots -- computing or otherwise -- is great.
Interesting, but don't the "roots" at some point become so distant as to be irrelevant? Isn't it better to look forwards, solving the problems of today and tomorrow, than to stay in the past constantly trying to re-solve old and obsolete problems?
An "easy-to-use" OS is a fine solution to a real-world problem, but imagine the ideal: everyone is able to use a real OS because everyone has a grounding in computers and how they work. At the very least, entertaining and interesting histories such as this are a step in the right direction.
I have to disagree with this. Why would it be ideal for everyone to have the detailed grounding in computers necessary to use a complex and powerful OS? Would it be a better world if everyone spent years learning enough about car mechanics to be able to strip down and rebuild an engine? No, it would be an enormous waste of time; time that could be better spent (for most people) learning other knowledge. We need well trained car mechanics, but only a fairly limited number. Similarly, I don't think 3-5 years of intensive training in the basics of computer science would be a sensible use of most people's limited time.
But my point: GUI is not the future. Real conversation is the thing. Combine a computer smart enough to have a conversation with a WWW filled with advanced standarised meta-data tags, and you have it.
"Now draw a line from just above the middle of the window to about 78% of the way across to the right"
"Like that, Dave?"
"No, down a bit"
"Like that, Dave?"
"No make it a little longer on the right"
"Like that, Dave?"
"No, I want it at a slightly deeper angle"
"Like that, Dave?"
"No, I guess slightly less of an angle"
"Like that, Dave?"
"No, it should start higher up"
"Like that, Dave?"
"Damn it, I'll just use the mouse"
Voice commands are not good for many things you want to do with your computer. We'll have GUIs around for a while yet.
I agree with the article in most respects, but I have a different take on where it's all going. IMHO, the future of UI design isn't in global adherence to a standard dictated by a company. The future of UI design is where applications adhere to the user's own preferences. That seems to be the logical direction of things right now (well, the last few years at least).. See, everyone wants cars, but some people want Ferarris, and some people want Toyotas. We're in the Model T era of UI design. Little black boxes with wagon wheels.
Yes, but notice that the User Interface of a Toyota is remarkably similar to that of a Ferrari. They both steer using a wheel, they both have the same arrangement of pedals. Why would I want cars that had different UIs? Each time I got in a new car, I would have to learn to drive it all over again. Do you remember how hard it was to learn to drive? That's how computers were before GUIs gave us consistency - for each new application you had to learn to drive it from scratch. Now a lot of what you have to learn transfers from previous applciations, and you just have to learn the bits that are different between apps.
While the pegboard computer is kinda neat, it reminds me of a much harder challenge. Build a computer that play a perfect game of tic-tac-toe (aka noughts and crosses) built only from 300 empty matchboxes and a set of coloured beads. Donald Michie did this back in 1960. You can find out more here
.
Oh, and man, those Men of Sieg Hall are just plain scary.
I wonder if we're ever going to reach a point where artists just record a concert once and have it broadcast to venues all over the world, instead of actually travelling.
Also, it's not like being at a big concert is all that different from watching on a big screen - you don't exactly touch the artist.
I've got to disagree. There are a number of things that being at a live concert/gig/performance has over a recorded event. There's the reaction of the rest of the crowd. This is hugely important - experiencing the crowd dynamic, jumping into the mosh pit, digging the froody groove with the rest of the acid-washed hipsters. Being there in the company of like-minded fans. Absolutely essential.
Then there is knowing that what you are experiencing is a one-off performance. This band aren't ever going to sound quite the same as tonight. The vocals will be particularly raw because they're on zero hours sleep and pumped full of vodka. That happy-poppy solo is going to be particularly sweet because the keyboardist just got laid. That sort of thing. This is the essence of human contact between you and the performers.
You are never going to successfully reproduce this remotely, because the core of the experience is that you are right there at that particular time with that particular bunch of people listening to that particular group play that particular song. This is why listening to a live concert recording is almost exactly the opposite experience to being at the same concert.
We're referring to how Jobs ran the company into the ground in the 80's, not today. Today he seems to be doing a fairly good job--at least, he's brought the company back from the brink. Or so we've been led to believe.
Then perhaps you should make this clear? "the guy could and has run one of the greatest computer companies into the ground" is in the present tense, not the past tense. And trust me, Apple has completely turned around from the miserable days of Gil Amelio...
I find it pretty amazing, though, that the CEO of one of the largest computer companies in the world is basically acting like a child.
But it doesn't seem like there's much evidence to support this allegation. ATi claim that he did this. I haven't seen Jobs/Apple's side of the story. There are at least as many reasons to not believe this as to believe it.
I've worked with Steve on a number of projects. He isn't the person portrayed in the biographies of him from the early 80s. I didn't know him back then, so I can't tell you if he has changed or if those claims were bogus in the first place. Steve cares a great deal about the success of Apple. I doubt very much that he removed the ATi cards from the new Macs at two days notice, even if he was (rightly) mad at ATi for screwing over the surprise factor for the new Cube machine.
Wouldn't they just be swapping video cards? The Cube just has a 4x AGP slot, right?
Yes, but the Radeon is a more expensive card than the 128, so it would also change the cost structure of the box. Not to mention the supply issues involved; Apple runs a couple of days inventory and a Just-In-Time manufacturing process that would be screwed with a 2 day notice of a swap.
It sure looks from the outside like they never intended to announce Radeon cards in the Cube or the other Macs.
"business sense"? what business sense? the guy could and has run one of the greatest computer companies into the ground b/c his ego writes checks his business sense can't cash.
Apple the two years before Steve Jobs took over: lost $1billion each year.
Apple the two years after Steve Jobs took over: made $1 billion each year.
If that's running a company into the ground, I say we need a whole lot more of it.
At least there are ways to obtain those things when they are announced...unlike Apple's 500 Mhz G4 announcement a year ago which took almost 6 months to fulfill...
It would be fairer to scold Motorola for this - they botched the PowerPC production runs. Apple should have been more careful in not announcing systems until they were receiving a good supply from Mot, but at the end of the day Apple don't fab. PowerPC's themselves, Motorola and IBM do.
They re-released The Little Mermaid in theaters at the same time as when Anastasia came out.
Oh, those evil monsters. How could they? I mean, trying to compete with a rival product? For shame. Now this is just the sort of thing the government ought to be seeking an anti-trust ruling on, not those nice Microsoft people.
Disney has one of the most ruthless marketing departments in the world (personal opinion). Did you see what these guys did when anyone tried to get into their space. For example, Anastasia.
For those of us not paying attention at the time, can you elaborate on this? What did Disney do to the guys who produced Anastasia?
This just shows what the Geeks have known for some time - we really are taking over the world. Okay, so Microsoft aren't every Geek's favorite company, but it does show how important hi-tech has become outside of the Geek community.
Of course, we won't know we've really won until its Linux that has a greater brand recognition than Coke, right?
Begging your pardon, but I'd say Macintouch has a pretty good reputation. They have been right on the spot with their reports regarding various Mac issues and software upgrades. To put them in the same sentence as MOSR and AppleInsider is ludicrous. MOSR and AI are sights that are based on crap, while Macintouch prints legitimate news instead of 98% rumor.
I used to think that, but in the last couple of months Ric Ford at MacInTouch has been posting some real stinkers. His recent stuff on Apple's Java was so wide of the truth it wasn't even funny. In my opinion he is burning through what little credibiility he had faster than a pre-IPO dotcom burns through its VC cash.
It's depressing that a non-event like new stylings for cases or monitors could been seen as a reason for legal action.
Perhaps this should tell you that industrial design isn't a non-event? Since Apple moved away from producing beige boxes and actually started caring about industrial design (amongst other things) its turned around from a company loosing $1 billion a year to one making $1 billion a year. Clearly a lot of actual computer users care a lot about what their machines look like. Equally clearly a lot of geeks don't care. That's fine, but fortunately there's room enough in the world for both viewpoints to be okay.
At the end of the day, leaks like this can help draw attention to a company and its products. But since SJ came back, there seems to be a dedicated effort to clamp down and control everything about Apple.
Earth to Steve: Support and encourage users and enthusiasts. No users == no more Apple.
And yet the number of Mac buyers has shot up since Steve took over.
Real World to Steve: Keep on truckin' your users love what you're doing with the Mac.
a) You shouldn't have leaked it. If I hand a stranger a bag of money to hold, its academic whether or not it's his fault for running off with it. In the same sense, if you allow proprietary/confidential information to get out, it's pretty silly to blame the sites that received it for posting it. Some would argue that information ceases to be proprietary if you fail to take appropriate measures to protect it.
No arguments from me on this one. I didn't leak it, and if I ever catch the *&^&%-er who did, I'll tear their thieving arms off quicker than you can say "hot grits". But I don't believe that the immoral action of one disloyal employee should prevent a company from seeking to protect its property, intellectual or otherwise.
b) You should have patented/trademarked it earlier. See argument above. If you build your house on a fault, don't blame the earth for moving when an earthquake knocks it down - blame yourself for not buying insurance BEFORE it happens.
Again, this is a good point. Unfortunately, the legal process of filing these things is often slow, and the design and production process is often very "deadline intensive", if you know what I mean. Sometimes its just not possible to get everything done in the ideal fashion.
Its not as if they knew it was a fraud and decided to post it anyways.
Yeah, and I've got this nice bridge to sell you:-) They could have figured it out themselves if they'd taken five seconds to look at the images, like the MacJunkie guys did. Instead they went for the "post first, figure out the truth later" approach. They are shoddy amateurs.
They found out later that the story 'could' be a fake. I agree with MacJunkie that it looks like a fraud, but who knows.
Exactly, who knows? So at the very least AppleInsider should have done some due diligence and tried to figure out what they had. Then if they decided to post, they should have put some caveats on their web page instead of telling us these definately were photos of the Cube machines.
Maybe Apple will see it, and decide to scrap the old design. Thus making it true. Who knows.
Well, if the machines are going to be unveiled at the MacWorld keynote tomorrow, I doubt they'd have time to redisgn the cases. Look I know Apple are cool and all, but even they can't redesign a case in less that 24 hours...
It came from a reputable source. It should get the benefit of the doubt.
How do you know it came from a reputable source? Who said it did? AppleInsider? Their "reputable sources" are wrong at least half the time, so they aren't reputable at all. Don't give them any benefit when they have such a poor track record.
These sites (AppleInsider, MacOSRumors, MacInTouch etc.) have a really lousey track record of posting half-truths and downright lies. Their quality control is really poor.
What's more, they can do real damage. I was involved in a product that Apple Insider leaked images of, two days before it was publically launched. As a result, we lost most trademark and patent rights outside the US. In most other countries, you cannot trademark and/or patent something that has already been released into the public domain.
So when you wonder why companies like Apple don't like these kind of sites and often seem heavy-handed in dealing with them, remeber that leaks like this can cost a company substantial amounts of money.
change how people behave? Are you nuts? Have speed limits changed how people drive? For the most part, no. Not until they pull every speeder over, every time, and pull their license - and incarcerate for driving on suspended licenses, will behavioral changes occur.
Sorry, but you're wrong about this. When California raised its freeway limit from 55 mph to 65 mph four years ago, average speeds dutifully rose from 65mph to 75mph. Drivers, on average, drive at 10 mph over the limit. Even though only 1 in 700 minor driving offences (speeding etc.) are prosecuted, most drivers stay close enough to the limit. The threat of being caught is part but only part of why the vast majority of people obey the law.
New Mexico. (BTW, I guess my post makes more sense if I mention that I'm under 21). Anyways, every time my coworkers have a party, they head straight to the bar. I've gone a couple of times and never once been carded.
Hmmm... interesting, so it sounds like your original gripe is more that they apply the rules very inconsistently in New Mexico.
What amazes me is that people think that by obscuring or forbidding access to such things, we will remove their influence upon those who we assume are impressionable (i.e. children). Children may not see rated R movies alone, but they do. Children may not view pornography but they do (and did long before the Internet ever existed).
I don't think that the lawmakers are nearly as naive as you make them out to be. Of course they realise that many of the laws that are passed are not going to be directly effective. Not all laws are meant to be strictly enforced. Many are aimed at signalling what society believes to be acceptable behavior.
In this example, of course many kids will get around this law (I'm using "law" in a non-technical way: IANAL). But it sends a signal that Indiana doesn't believe that certain depictions of violence are appropriate for children. Even if the law is never enforced, the publicity surrounding the law will send a message about what society believes is civilized and what is not. This helps parents enforce these rules on their own children because it allows them to point to how most parents expects their children to behave. This does actually have a positive effect.
Anti-racism and other anti-discrimination laws are like this. There are actually very few prosecutions under these laws, but they send a strong signal that society doesn't believe racism, sexism, homophobia etc. are acceptable. Over time this can change how people behave.
This is going too far. I get carded trying to buy an R-Rated movie, get carded to buy Soldier of Fortune in BC, get carded to play video games in Indiana but don't get carded when I walk into a bar. Go figure where our priorities are.
Which State do you live in? I get carded in bars on a semi-regular basis (though less frequently now I'm past 30. Sigh). Many bars in my part of California card eveyone on entry.
Be careful what you say. Within the United States, such cartels would violate anti-trust laws. I am more careful when accusing folks of committing felonies.
Indeed. You'll notice that my statement was: They are accused of operating an informal cartel. This is a very careful wording on my part. I am merely reporting that others have made an accusation;-)
The laws of supply and demand are nearly sufficient to explain how gas prices have fluctuated in the U.S.A (especially the midwest) so far this summer. A pipeline to the midwest was out of commission; less supply => higher prices.
This is certainly the interpretation of events offered by the oil companies, and a number of government investigations (both in the US and in Europe) have backed up this claim. Without further evidence it is certainly not possible to prove illegal or unethical behavior on the part of the oil companies.
What exactly is informal about OPEC? I agree that the US, Canadian, and former Soviet companies are only infomally in leauge, but it seems to me that the only thing blocking anti-trust procedings are that most of these companies are not controlled by a single govenment.
Oh there's absolutely nothing informal about OPEC, but that wasn't what I was talking about. There are two cartels operating here. OPEC countries work (largely) together to cap oil production and thus raise prices of the crude oil shipped to refineries.
But I was talking about the refinery companies themselves (Exxon, Shell, Mobile etc.) who also own the vast majority of the retail outlets (your local gas stations). They are accused of operating an informal cartel to maintain high gas prices at the pumps. This is separate from restricting the supply of crude oil.
If our province had that kind of incentive. Natural gas is much cleaner (and more efficient) than gasoline. The oil companies are a much greater monopoly than what Microsoft is, and everyone does complain.
The parallel to Microsoft is interesting because, of course, the first major anti-trust breakup of a company was of Standard Oil in (I think) 1911. The government ruled them a monopoly and split them into a number of smaller companies, which were the forebears of the major oil companies we have today.
The argument against the present oil companies is that they operate an informal cartel to keep prices up. This is one disadvantage of splitting a monopoly - it is much harder to show that a number of companies are colluding to act monopolisticaly, whereas its relatively easy to show that a single company is a monopoly. A two Microsoft cartel may be even worse than one Microsoft monopoly.
Since it's a private company, it should be allowed to ban any user it wants.
And indeed, that's exactly what eBay did. They did ban him, but he apparently then came back on the system no less than 45 times under different user names. I guess in the end eBay got fed up with this bozo and decided the only sanction he might listen to was a legal one. Some people just don't know when to give up and go home.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, as far as I'm concerned, anything that reminds us of our roots -- computing or otherwise -- is great.
Interesting, but don't the "roots" at some point become so distant as to be irrelevant? Isn't it better to look forwards, solving the problems of today and tomorrow, than to stay in the past constantly trying to re-solve old and obsolete problems?
An "easy-to-use" OS is a fine solution to a real-world problem, but imagine the ideal: everyone is able to use a real OS because everyone has a grounding in computers and how they work. At the very least, entertaining and interesting histories such as this are a step in the right direction.
I have to disagree with this. Why would it be ideal for everyone to have the detailed grounding in computers necessary to use a complex and powerful OS? Would it be a better world if everyone spent years learning enough about car mechanics to be able to strip down and rebuild an engine? No, it would be an enormous waste of time; time that could be better spent (for most people) learning other knowledge. We need well trained car mechanics, but only a fairly limited number. Similarly, I don't think 3-5 years of intensive training in the basics of computer science would be a sensible use of most people's limited time.
But my point: GUI is not the future. Real conversation is the thing. Combine a computer smart enough to have a conversation with a WWW filled with advanced standarised meta-data tags, and you have it.
"Now draw a line from just above the middle of the window to about 78% of the way across to the right"
"Like that, Dave?"
"No, down a bit"
"Like that, Dave?"
"No make it a little longer on the right"
"Like that, Dave?"
"No, I want it at a slightly deeper angle"
"Like that, Dave?"
"No, I guess slightly less of an angle"
"Like that, Dave?"
"No, it should start higher up"
"Like that, Dave?"
"Damn it, I'll just use the mouse"
Voice commands are not good for many things you want to do with your computer. We'll have GUIs around for a while yet.
I agree with the article in most respects, but I have a different take on where it's all going. IMHO, the future of UI design isn't in global adherence to a standard dictated by a company. The future of UI design is where applications adhere to the user's own preferences. That seems to be the logical direction of things right now (well, the last few years at least).. See, everyone wants cars, but some people want Ferarris, and some people want Toyotas. We're in the Model T era of UI design. Little black boxes with wagon wheels.
Yes, but notice that the User Interface of a Toyota is remarkably similar to that of a Ferrari. They both steer using a wheel, they both have the same arrangement of pedals. Why would I want cars that had different UIs? Each time I got in a new car, I would have to learn to drive it all over again. Do you remember how hard it was to learn to drive? That's how computers were before GUIs gave us consistency - for each new application you had to learn to drive it from scratch. Now a lot of what you have to learn transfers from previous applciations, and you just have to learn the bits that are different between apps.
While the pegboard computer is kinda neat, it reminds me of a much harder challenge. Build a computer that play a perfect game of tic-tac-toe (aka noughts and crosses) built only from 300 empty matchboxes and a set of coloured beads. Donald Michie did this back in 1960. You can find out more here
.Oh, and man, those Men of Sieg Hall are just plain scary.
I wonder if we're ever going to reach a point where artists just record a concert once and have it broadcast to venues all over the world, instead of actually travelling.
Also, it's not like being at a big concert is all that different from watching on a big screen - you don't exactly touch the artist.
I've got to disagree. There are a number of things that being at a live concert/gig/performance has over a recorded event. There's the reaction of the rest of the crowd. This is hugely important - experiencing the crowd dynamic, jumping into the mosh pit, digging the froody groove with the rest of the acid-washed hipsters. Being there in the company of like-minded fans. Absolutely essential.
Then there is knowing that what you are experiencing is a one-off performance. This band aren't ever going to sound quite the same as tonight. The vocals will be particularly raw because they're on zero hours sleep and pumped full of vodka. That happy-poppy solo is going to be particularly sweet because the keyboardist just got laid. That sort of thing. This is the essence of human contact between you and the performers.
You are never going to successfully reproduce this remotely, because the core of the experience is that you are right there at that particular time with that particular bunch of people listening to that particular group play that particular song. This is why listening to a live concert recording is almost exactly the opposite experience to being at the same concert.
We're referring to how Jobs ran the company into the ground in the 80's, not today. Today he seems to be doing a fairly good job--at least, he's brought the company back from the brink. Or so we've been led to believe.
Then perhaps you should make this clear? "the guy could and has run one of the greatest computer companies into the ground" is in the present tense, not the past tense. And trust me, Apple has completely turned around from the miserable days of Gil Amelio...
I find it pretty amazing, though, that the CEO of one of the largest computer companies in the world is basically acting like a child.
But it doesn't seem like there's much evidence to support this allegation. ATi claim that he did this. I haven't seen Jobs/Apple's side of the story. There are at least as many reasons to not believe this as to believe it.
I've worked with Steve on a number of projects. He isn't the person portrayed in the biographies of him from the early 80s. I didn't know him back then, so I can't tell you if he has changed or if those claims were bogus in the first place. Steve cares a great deal about the success of Apple. I doubt very much that he removed the ATi cards from the new Macs at two days notice, even if he was (rightly) mad at ATi for screwing over the surprise factor for the new Cube machine.
Uhh..
Wouldn't they just be swapping video cards? The Cube just has a 4x AGP slot, right?
Yes, but the Radeon is a more expensive card than the 128, so it would also change the cost structure of the box. Not to mention the supply issues involved; Apple runs a couple of days inventory and a Just-In-Time manufacturing process that would be screwed with a 2 day notice of a swap.
It sure looks from the outside like they never intended to announce Radeon cards in the Cube or the other Macs.
"business sense"? what business sense? the guy could and has run one of the greatest computer companies into the ground b/c his ego writes checks his business sense can't cash.
Apple the two years before Steve Jobs took over: lost $1billion each year.
Apple the two years after Steve Jobs took over: made $1 billion each year.
If that's running a company into the ground, I say we need a whole lot more of it.
At least there are ways to obtain those things when they are announced...unlike Apple's 500 Mhz G4 announcement a year ago which took almost 6 months to fulfill...
It would be fairer to scold Motorola for this - they botched the PowerPC production runs. Apple should have been more careful in not announcing systems until they were receiving a good supply from Mot, but at the end of the day Apple don't fab. PowerPC's themselves, Motorola and IBM do.
They re-released The Little Mermaid in theaters at the same time as when Anastasia came out.
Oh, those evil monsters. How could they? I mean, trying to compete with a rival product? For shame. Now this is just the sort of thing the government ought to be seeking an anti-trust ruling on, not those nice Microsoft people.
.Disney has one of the most ruthless marketing departments in the world (personal opinion). Did you see what these guys did when anyone tried to get into their space. For example, Anastasia.
For those of us not paying attention at the time, can you elaborate on this? What did Disney do to the guys who produced Anastasia?
This just shows what the Geeks have known for some time - we really are taking over the world. Okay, so Microsoft aren't every Geek's favorite company, but it does show how important hi-tech has become outside of the Geek community.
Of course, we won't know we've really won until its Linux that has a greater brand recognition than Coke, right?
Begging your pardon, but I'd say Macintouch has a pretty good reputation. They have been right on the spot with their reports regarding various Mac issues and software upgrades. To put them in the same sentence as MOSR and AppleInsider is ludicrous. MOSR and AI are sights that are based on crap, while Macintouch prints legitimate news instead of 98% rumor.
I used to think that, but in the last couple of months Ric Ford at MacInTouch has been posting some real stinkers. His recent stuff on Apple's Java was so wide of the truth it wasn't even funny. In my opinion he is burning through what little credibiility he had faster than a pre-IPO dotcom burns through its VC cash.
It's depressing that a non-event like new stylings for cases or monitors could been seen as a reason for legal action.
Perhaps this should tell you that industrial design isn't a non-event? Since Apple moved away from producing beige boxes and actually started caring about industrial design (amongst other things) its turned around from a company loosing $1 billion a year to one making $1 billion a year. Clearly a lot of actual computer users care a lot about what their machines look like. Equally clearly a lot of geeks don't care. That's fine, but fortunately there's room enough in the world for both viewpoints to be okay.
At the end of the day, leaks like this can help draw attention to a company and its products. But since SJ came back, there seems to be a dedicated effort to clamp down and control everything about Apple.
Earth to Steve: Support and encourage users and enthusiasts. No users == no more Apple.
And yet the number of Mac buyers has shot up since Steve took over.
Real World to Steve: Keep on truckin' your users love what you're doing with the Mac.
a) You shouldn't have leaked it. If I hand a stranger a bag of money to hold, its academic whether or not it's his fault for running off with it. In the same sense, if you allow proprietary/confidential information to get out, it's pretty silly to blame the sites that received it for posting it. Some would argue that information ceases to be proprietary if you fail to take appropriate measures to protect it.
No arguments from me on this one. I didn't leak it, and if I ever catch the *&^&%-er who did, I'll tear their thieving arms off quicker than you can say "hot grits". But I don't believe that the immoral action of one disloyal employee should prevent a company from seeking to protect its property, intellectual or otherwise.
b) You should have patented/trademarked it earlier. See argument above. If you build your house on a fault, don't blame the earth for moving when an earthquake knocks it down - blame yourself for not buying insurance BEFORE it happens.
Again, this is a good point. Unfortunately, the legal process of filing these things is often slow, and the design and production process is often very "deadline intensive", if you know what I mean. Sometimes its just not possible to get everything done in the ideal fashion.
Its not as if they knew it was a fraud and decided to post it anyways.
Yeah, and I've got this nice bridge to sell you :-) They could have figured it out themselves if they'd taken five seconds to look at the images, like the MacJunkie guys did. Instead they went for the "post first, figure out the truth later" approach. They are shoddy amateurs.
They found out later that the story 'could' be a fake. I agree with MacJunkie that it looks like a fraud, but who knows.
Exactly, who knows? So at the very least AppleInsider should have done some due diligence and tried to figure out what they had. Then if they decided to post, they should have put some caveats on their web page instead of telling us these definately were photos of the Cube machines.
Maybe Apple will see it, and decide to scrap the old design. Thus making it true. Who knows.
Well, if the machines are going to be unveiled at the MacWorld keynote tomorrow, I doubt they'd have time to redisgn the cases. Look I know Apple are cool and all, but even they can't redesign a case in less that 24 hours...
It came from a reputable source. It should get the benefit of the doubt.
How do you know it came from a reputable source? Who said it did? AppleInsider? Their "reputable sources" are wrong at least half the time, so they aren't reputable at all. Don't give them any benefit when they have such a poor track record.
These sites (AppleInsider, MacOSRumors, MacInTouch etc.) have a really lousey track record of posting half-truths and downright lies. Their quality control is really poor.
What's more, they can do real damage. I was involved in a product that Apple Insider leaked images of, two days before it was publically launched. As a result, we lost most trademark and patent rights outside the US. In most other countries, you cannot trademark and/or patent something that has already been released into the public domain.
So when you wonder why companies like Apple don't like these kind of sites and often seem heavy-handed in dealing with them, remeber that leaks like this can cost a company substantial amounts of money.
change how people behave? Are you nuts? Have speed limits changed how people drive? For the most part, no. Not until they pull every speeder over, every time, and pull their license - and incarcerate for driving on suspended licenses, will behavioral changes occur.
Sorry, but you're wrong about this. When California raised its freeway limit from 55 mph to 65 mph four years ago, average speeds dutifully rose from 65mph to 75mph. Drivers, on average, drive at 10 mph over the limit. Even though only 1 in 700 minor driving offences (speeding etc.) are prosecuted, most drivers stay close enough to the limit. The threat of being caught is part but only part of why the vast majority of people obey the law.
New Mexico. (BTW, I guess my post makes more sense if I mention that I'm under 21). Anyways, every time my coworkers have a party, they head straight to the bar. I've gone a couple of times and never once been carded.
Hmmm... interesting, so it sounds like your original gripe is more that they apply the rules very inconsistently in New Mexico.
What amazes me is that people think that by obscuring or forbidding access to such things, we will remove their influence upon those who we assume are impressionable (i.e. children). Children may not see rated R movies alone, but they do. Children may not view pornography but they do (and did long before the Internet ever existed).
I don't think that the lawmakers are nearly as naive as you make them out to be. Of course they realise that many of the laws that are passed are not going to be directly effective. Not all laws are meant to be strictly enforced. Many are aimed at signalling what society believes to be acceptable behavior.
In this example, of course many kids will get around this law (I'm using "law" in a non-technical way: IANAL). But it sends a signal that Indiana doesn't believe that certain depictions of violence are appropriate for children. Even if the law is never enforced, the publicity surrounding the law will send a message about what society believes is civilized and what is not. This helps parents enforce these rules on their own children because it allows them to point to how most parents expects their children to behave. This does actually have a positive effect.
Anti-racism and other anti-discrimination laws are like this. There are actually very few prosecutions under these laws, but they send a strong signal that society doesn't believe racism, sexism, homophobia etc. are acceptable. Over time this can change how people behave.
This is going too far. I get carded trying to buy an R-Rated movie, get carded to buy Soldier of Fortune in BC, get carded to play video games in Indiana but don't get carded when I walk into a bar. Go figure where our priorities are.
Which State do you live in? I get carded in bars on a semi-regular basis (though less frequently now I'm past 30. Sigh). Many bars in my part of California card eveyone on entry.
Be careful what you say. Within the United States, such cartels would violate anti-trust laws. I am more careful when accusing folks of committing felonies.
Indeed. You'll notice that my statement was: They are accused of operating an informal cartel. This is a very careful wording on my part. I am merely reporting that others have made an accusation ;-)
The laws of supply and demand are nearly sufficient to explain how gas prices have fluctuated in the U.S.A (especially the midwest) so far this summer. A pipeline to the midwest was out of commission; less supply => higher prices.
This is certainly the interpretation of events offered by the oil companies, and a number of government investigations (both in the US and in Europe) have backed up this claim. Without further evidence it is certainly not possible to prove illegal or unethical behavior on the part of the oil companies.
What exactly is informal about OPEC? I agree that the US, Canadian, and former Soviet companies are only infomally in leauge, but it seems to me that the only thing blocking anti-trust procedings are that most of these companies are not controlled by a single govenment.
Oh there's absolutely nothing informal about OPEC, but that wasn't what I was talking about. There are two cartels operating here. OPEC countries work (largely) together to cap oil production and thus raise prices of the crude oil shipped to refineries.
But I was talking about the refinery companies themselves (Exxon, Shell, Mobile etc.) who also own the vast majority of the retail outlets (your local gas stations). They are accused of operating an informal cartel to maintain high gas prices at the pumps. This is separate from restricting the supply of crude oil.
If our province had that kind of incentive. Natural gas is much cleaner (and more efficient) than gasoline. The oil companies are a much greater monopoly than what Microsoft is, and everyone does complain.
The parallel to Microsoft is interesting because, of course, the first major anti-trust breakup of a company was of Standard Oil in (I think) 1911. The government ruled them a monopoly and split them into a number of smaller companies, which were the forebears of the major oil companies we have today.
The argument against the present oil companies is that they operate an informal cartel to keep prices up. This is one disadvantage of splitting a monopoly - it is much harder to show that a number of companies are colluding to act monopolisticaly, whereas its relatively easy to show that a single company is a monopoly. A two Microsoft cartel may be even worse than one Microsoft monopoly.
Since it's a private company, it should be allowed to ban any user it wants.
And indeed, that's exactly what eBay did. They did ban him, but he apparently then came back on the system no less than 45 times under different user names. I guess in the end eBay got fed up with this bozo and decided the only sanction he might listen to was a legal one. Some people just don't know when to give up and go home.